- The Washington Times - Wednesday, May 31, 2006

For a long time, Democrats have been picking on President Bush — “King George” — for “consolidating executive authority” and usurping legislative authority, not to mention tons of other things. But he does himself no favors by ordering that documents seized from Rep. William Jefferson’s office be sealed for 45 days.

Mr. Jefferson is the subject of a federal investigation into whether he accepted a bribe from two people — who have already entered guilty pleas — to promote a high-tech business venture. Authorities say they have a videotape of Mr. Jefferson receiving a $100,000 bribe and found $90,000 in cash in a freezer at his Washington, D.C., apartment. Last month the FBI, with a duly executed search warrant in hand, entered and searched Mr. Jefferson’s Capitol Hill office and seized a number of documents. Members of both parties of Congress expressed outrage at what they claim is an egregious violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine.

The FBI, of course, is part of the executive branch. The congressmen’s objection is that for an agency of the executive branch to raid the office of a member of the legislative branch, is a dangerous executive encroachment on the legislature. They say this is the first search of a congressman’s office in the more than two centuries since the first Congress convened.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a nearly unprecedented joint statement condemning the FBI raid and demanding that the FBI return the documents.

With all due respect, these claims are preposterous. I don’t believe President Bush should have intervened, even if just to provide a cooling-off period. There are principles here worth vindicating, and compromise for short-term harmony can sometimes damage those principles.

While congressmen can loftily assert the separation-of-powers principle is at play, I disagree. To argue the separation-of-powers doctrine grants immunity from official search and seizure to members of the legislative branch is a slap in the face to another lofty and indispensable concept: the rule of law.

The Constitution establishes a government of laws, not men; and no men, including government officials, are above the law. While legislators bellyache about the excessive authority of the executive branch, they are, in essence, arguing for excessive authority and privilege for members of their branch. We have no kings. We have no royalty among legislators. If they are suspected of violating the law, the executive branch has an obligation to investigate and to employ its full powers in doing so — including that of reasonable searches of their offices and seizures of relevant effects.

The separation-of-powers doctrine delineates governmental functions and distributes them among three branches. But these branches do not have coequal power over all functions — such as law enforcement, the prerogative of the executive branch. It pits the branches against each other through a checks-and-balances scheme designed to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful at the expense of our liberties.

It is preposterous to argue individual congressmen are not subject to search and seizure by executive branch agencies because that would give the executive branch undue power. Who else is to conduct such searches? The judiciary, by the way, was involved, too, in approving the warrant. Are law enforcement authorities supposed to give advance warning to suspected criminal congressmen to allow them to cover their tracks? This is too ridiculous for words.

When congressmen speciously invoke the separation-of-powers doctrine to shield their own members from law enforcement, they damage the doctrine by diluting and misapplying it. And through their arrogance in trying to elevate themselves above the reach of law, they make a mockery of the lofty principles they purport to serve.

The separation of powers does not create a firewall between the branches. They interact all the time. Remember the Supreme Court ordering President Nixon to turn over the tapes? And Congress, if it so chooses, can restrict the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts. To suggest every time one branch takes action that affects another branch violates the separation-of-powers principle is an insult to that principle.

These congressmen need to remember they are the representatives of the people, not our privileged masters. It is disappointing that, in this case, otherwise good men are sending a contrary message.

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide